Headlines

Ross Douthat

Kermit Gosnell and the politics of abortion

Since the story was finally forced into prominence late last week, it has inspired a number of eloquent critiques of how the press covers abortion (I recommend reading Carl Cannon and Melinda Henneberger, in particular) as well as various pieces defending the media from charges of bias and pinning the lack of coverage on other factors.

But the most interesting response by far has come from voices on the uncompromisingly pro-choice left. These writers have basically made two interlocking arguments: First, that there was no “liberal media” blackout, because feminist bloggers wrote about the story from the beginning, and second, that if there was a breakdown in mainstream coverage, it was the failure to recognize the ways in which the Gosnell story is actually about inequities in access to medical care and the perverse consequences of abortion restrictions, rather than (as the pro-life side would have it) the inherent horror of the procedure itself. …

But her obfuscation is woven together with a legitimate point. The most rigorously pro-choice writers really did cover the Gosnell case more assiduously than the mainstream media, because they really do see it, not as an embarrassment to the cause of abortion rights, but a vindication of their worldview.

… Thus Matt Yglesias’s conclusion that from a rigorously pro-choice, pro-Roe v. Wade perspective the lesson of the Gosnell horror show is not that the regulations he flouted should have been better enforced; rather, it’s that Pennsylvania needed an ”above-board competitive marketplace with multiple legal providers of late-term abortion facilities,” and the restrictions on late-term abortion unfortunately prevented that marketplace from emerging.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

“Thus Matt Yglesias’s conclusion that from a rigorously pro-choice, pro-Roe v. Wade perspective the lesson of the Gosnell horror show is not that the regulations he flouted should have been better enforced; rather, it’s that Pennsylvania needed an ”above-board competitive marketplace with multiple legal providers of late-term abortion facilities,” and the restrictions on late-term abortion unfortunately prevented that marketplace from emerging.”

This shouldn’t just be the lesson for people coming from a “rigorously pro-choice” position. It should be the lesson for anyone who believes, as I do, that the free market, unencumbered by onerous government interference, is the best and most efficient provider of safe, reliable, and affordable goods and services. It’s a shame that many people’s ideological blinders prevent them from seeing such an obvious truth.

Kermit Gosnell is, and should be taken as, a case study in how the free market breaks down when the government gets involved. The desperate women who went to him deserved better. They deserved to be able to choose from multiple late-term abortion providers, competing with each other to provide the best service possible.

Summary: There is a ‘tension’ between the ‘gruesomness’ of late term abortion and our ‘values’. We have to be very careful not to acknowledge that the pro-lifers have a point because we ‘value’ baby killers.

Replace “abortion” with “gun” or “oil” in your post and then tell me what you would think about someone ranting that the gun/energy industries resisting additional restrictions are just callously and irresponsibly thinking about their own bottom lines.

Replace “abortion” with “gun” or “oil” in your post and then tell me what you would think about someone ranting that the gun/energy industries resisting additional restrictions are just callously and irresponsibly thinking about their own bottom lines.

Armin Tamzarian on April 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

HotAir needs to put an ad out recruiting a higher quality of troll.

Tell ya what, how ’bout we just go all the way and legalize putting out hits on people, not just fetuses. Murder should be safe, legal, and unregulated. Yeehaw!

Would that make you happy? After all, we don’t want to be all “socialist” and put restraints on the murder industry.

Kermit Gosnell is, and should be taken as, a case study in how the free market breaks down when the government gets involved. The desperate women who went to him deserved better. They deserved to be able to choose from multiple late-term abortion providers, competing with each other to provide the best service possible.

Armin Tamzarian on April 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM

That won’t happen, because late term abortion providers can’t advertise their businesses. There’s a reason they all work in the shadow. People would be appalled if those practices would be dragged into the light. That’s why all abortion supporters use code language like “reproductive health”.

Kermit Gosnell is, and should be taken as, a case study in how the free market breaks down when the government gets involved. The desperate women who went to him deserved better. They deserved to be able to choose from multiple late-term abortion providers, competing with each other to provide the best service possible.

Armin Tamzarian on April 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Wow. Just…wow.

Planned Parenthood could always use more volunteers. You want to use the scissors or hold the suction?

What is so shocking to me after all this time is that so many women, are willing to have their child butchered in their womb. Incredible! Abortions belong in back alleys, where else should a murder take place.

Kermit Gosnell is, and should be taken as, a case study in how the free market breaks down when the government gets involved. The desperate women who went to him deserved better. They deserved to be able to choose from multiple late-term abortion providers, competing with each other to provide the best service possible.

Armin Tamzarian on April 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Actually they deserve the same fate they are visiting upon their unborn children. They should thank the Lord they don’t receive it.

No, it’s not. Not in the slightest bit. There is nothing immoral about physical objects you can either choose to use, or not. There is, however, something profoundly immoral about ending the life of another individual without the slightest regard to said individual’s desires.

Your moral relativism will get you in a lot of trouble. It’s time you nipped it in the bud.